This is an archive of past discussions with User:Megistias. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I agree with the Star Trek approach about Sameis. I was wondering why I have never seen that name on a single book or map. I see that Babiniotis uses sometimes exaggerated methodoly in his research that is not approved by other linguistsic cycles.
This definition should finally go, it was partial written in the article anyway (Babinioties' definition also says that Tsiamouria is part of Thesprotia (not all) & Tsamides are (only) Muslims Albanians - claims that are not adopted in the article).Alexikoua (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
They never existed nor was they any thracian or illyrian tribe in the area.Archaeology supercedes him.
Regarding Babinioties you can understand from this that he makes "politicized" exceptions of the left wing type that are irrational to say the least.The best i can say for him is that he was on crack at the time and they existed only in his drug induced fantasy.Megistias (talk) 15:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
You've removed a chapter from the Odyssey- article containing a fringe (=outside the mainstream) theory. Because this theory indeed is not accepted by mainstream scholars, you've acted according to Wikipedia mores: undue weight. However, 'fringe' does not necessarily equal 'false'. Therefore it would be nice if you didn't use the word 'trash' anymore for something you don't agree with. It might be considered uncivil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.56.38.223 (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Well that idea was trashy and and beyond retardation.We have science to tell us the facts and comedians to make us laugh.The author of that idea must have confused comedy with archeological research.Megistias (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
That idea would be "trashy" if it claimed that the Sea Peoples and tin traders came from Hawaii. In fact relations between the east mediterranean and northern europe via the seas had existed for centuries. For instance tin trade from Cornwall. This is not far out at all. So much for comedy.
Its just silly, and if we were to let something like that in an article and we would be full of additions of a similar "quality"Megistias (talk) 06:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll continue with the copy-edit job, in Illyrian Warfare. I have a merging proposal: Epirote League, to Epirus (ancient state). What do you thing? Both articles are about the same political unit. Actually what's written in 'Epirote League' would be a good lead for Epirus. I prefer the title Epirus (ancient state), because it seems more simple as a term (although 'Epirote League' was a official name, like to choose between Greece and Hellenic Democracy).Alexikoua (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Yes, but it is evident that a type of helmet is being referred to. "Corinthian" etc is merely a designation, that much is made clear right from the start in every article. It would be like going around adding "type" after the Stahlhelm, the PASGT/"Fritz" helmet, the morion, etc, which then produces phrasings like "The Corinthian type helmet was a type of helmet" which are extremely awkward... Provided that the context is clear, I don't think there is any chance of confusion. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, adding the "type" makes sense in a general text, where one wants to be unambiguous, but in a dedicated article, where it is made abundantly clear that it is about a type of helmet, it is simply redundant. Furthermore, like you I too have read a lot of books on ancient warfare, and "type" is often used in the first occurrence and dropped thereafter. To anyone who has read anything on the subject, "Chalcidian helmet" cannot mean anything other than a "helmet of the Chalcidian type", while to a non-expert, the fact that the relevant article is about a helmet type is more than obvious. Constantine ✍ 15:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Very good job. Take a look at this [[1]], someone wants to creat a Illyrian prehistory section starting from 6,000 B.C. with wrong sources.Alexikoua (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
ohrid
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
The isse has been discussed and resolved in the past,check the archives,also the article is stable and referenced for a long time.Megistias (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
i don't see any similar discussion about the exact topic of my discussion, this renews the invite to you to talk about it if for you it is not a waste of time Megistias. Internal Rising (talk) 21:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
On your contribution, creating 280 articles of quality in wikipedia. Because an encyclopedia needs real contributors with scientific knowledge. Keep up the briliant work!Alexikoua (talk) 13:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion
I have been bold and changed the contentious sentence on the appeal to criminals to hidden text and relocated to where it seems it might prove a better fit (in due time). Please make a new start with AnnaFabiano and assume her good faith. I believe she is really trying to be helpful and is perhaps frustrated in part by what she perceives as excessive ownership on your part. I think she can be a useful partner, if you can both learn to collude productively, and you will need allies when those editors who firmly hold the perspectives of Albanian nationalism as TRUTH, and begin attacking this article to push their POV. The more neutral and it appears to uninvolved editors and admins, the more assistance you will likely get in protecting your work in a truly neutral, encyclopedic form. You are doing a good job in developing the article, especially with sourcing, so please keep up your good work, while taking constructive criticism in stride. Best regards, Askari Mark(Talk)22:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Anna is not 'Good faith'.She is not trying to be helpful and she reminds me of user Pelasgicmoon.I want to write proper articles but the problem is a few improper users and the lack of references as you can never have enough.Megistias (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I am not familiar with Pelasgicmoon, but I am well aware of how contentious the editing can get on topics such as this. That is what I am trying to head off. I have dealt with any number of disruptive, POV-pushing editors over the years, and I don't think Anna is ill-intentioned. I think the issue is more a matter of misinterpretation over differing communication styles – which is a common problem in written communication with strangers, particularly, it seems, in online fora. All I am asking is that you take a fresh start with her, and debate issues and sources, not persons and their motivations. Just as in real life, we all have to work at times with people we find irksome or difficult; assuming good faith is the grease that makes Wikipedia work. As one of our five pillars observes: "Since all your contributions are freely licensed to the public, no editor owns any article: all your contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed." (Emphasis added.) All I am asking is that you lay off accusing her of lies and harassment and try to work with her. I and other objective editors and admins can help things progress more smoothly, but only where editors are willing to work together. Where you disagree with a statement by her, simply state why you disagree with her assertion – and do so in a way that helps those of us who are neutral and less knowledgeable about the subject material better understand it and in a way that helps us help you. Askari Mark(Talk)23:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
i am not involved in that issue, but it appears to me Megistias had enought with bad-intentioned editors and now he treats as if he is the owner of the article almost everyone who wants to discuss with him when the goal for him its to leave the article as it is. I am here to discuss Megistias, for me discussing means learning, if you're here for the same reason we can have a nice exchange of ideas. Internal Rising (talk) 08:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It's moving on on the wrong direction. Instead of just calling people liars when do you think you will be ready to cooperate so we can together finish te page?--Visar Arifaj (talk) 15:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
You are all ganging up clouded by whatever nationalistic feelings some of you posses.Taking part in the Albanian educational system-whoever of you has- has taught you the same things that are pointed out as unrealistic and nationalistic in article as normal.Megistias (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Megistias, please, you simply cannot go around accusing people who disagree with you of misleading, lying, harassing, or telling someone to “take your Albanian gang and scurry off.” I had hoped to head off an eruption of disruption on the article, but I see it has already gotten to the point of an RFCU being raised against you. Honestly, if it proceeds to the point where it goes to AN/I, I can tell you from what I’ve seen there, you will in all likelihood be the one who gets blocked – which would be a sad outcome for a good editor. In fact, the outcome could be even worse. You may not be aware of the ARBCOM “Digwuren” ruling, which applies to all articles related to Eastern Europe; by being disruptive, you risk being automatically topic-banned. Perhaps you should disengage for a while, take a deep breath and count to ten before posting, take a wikibreak, or do whatever helps you not appear so combative. Askari Mark(Talk)02:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
You are clearly not communicating with all other editors. The information you insist on putting on the lead it is already mentioned twice in the article, and it is also on the lead but with a different (more NPOV) formulation. So please stop insisting on only your version, or I will have to report you. —Anna Comnena (talk) 14:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
You are clearly the one not communicating with other editors and with the references.The formulation of the summary was misleading if left as simply Illyrian-Albanian.References speak for themselves.Report me.Megistias (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Request for Comment
RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Megistias)
Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Albanian nationalism, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. When reviewing the history of an article, it is hard to see what is going on when there is a large number of small changes. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Athamanes (modern), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Athamanes. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
On September 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Queen Teuta of Issa, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Very nice job with the map on Epirus. I have a small objection about the Dessareti, according to Campridge Ancient History they are located between Dardanii and Ardiai.Alexikoua (talk) 19:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I though if we delete 1 or 2 minor settlements in south Epirus, would be better (just a little more comfortable for the eye, this area seems to be full of letters).
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
A tag has been placed on Maduateni requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Apbiologyrocks (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Megistias. Sorry for getting back to you so late on this. The article looks like it has great potential, but unfortunately I do not know much about the subject. Unfortunately, I also plan on going into semi-retirement, as I have contributed so much to Wiki that I feel my time here has largely passed. I'll drop by now and then to check on things, but as for pursuing major projects like I did for Augustus, I'll pass that baton on to someone else who has the amount of spare time I once had! Lol. Cheers.--Pericles of AthensTalk11:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago20 comments3 people in discussion
Hey there, I've seen some of your recent edits to Bulgarian city and village articles that you have justified with "Thracians are identified at 1000 BC and after". A quick check online reveals that you might be wrong about that: "... and in the Bronze Age the lands were inhabited by Thracian tribes." Britannica, "The Thracians migrated to south-eastern Europe in the 7th millennium." (The Thracians, 700 BC – AD 46, p. 4), "Everything suggests that the period between the 16th and 11th centuries B.C. was the great age of the stabilization phase of the associating elements of the cosmology, mythology and religion in the nucleus of the Thracian diaspora, i.e. south of the Danube, in the Propontis basin, in North-Western Asia Minor and some Aegean Islands." (Thracians and Mycenaeans, p. 12)
What does it mean that "Thracians were identified" anyway? That Thracians were mentioned in the 1st millennium BC in Greek sources doesn't mean they weren't around earlier; as far as I know, archaeological evidence testifies to that. Todor→Bozhinov06:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
We dont recognize Thracians prior to 1000 BC.It means that i cant be discerned from the finds.They become "Thracians" proper after 1000 BC.
John Boardman, I.E.S. Edwards, E. Sollberger, and N.G.L. Hammond. The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume 3, Part 1: The Prehistory of the Balkans, the Middle East and the Aegean World, Tenth to Eighth Centuries BC. Cambridge University Press, 1982, p. 53. "Yet we cannot identify the Thracians at that remote period, because we do not know for certain whether the Thracian and Illyrian tribes had separated by then. It is safer to speak of Proto-Thracians from whom there developed in the Iron Age..."Megistias (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I frankly can't see your point. Sure, we can call them Proto-Thracians before a certain point in time, but that doesn't mean we have to erase every trace of (Proto-)Thracians by substituting mentions of their presence with the vague and unexplanatory "prehistoric". These people were there and it was them who founded those settlements, whether we call them Thracians, Proto-Thracians, Thraco-Illyrians, Martians or Moonpeople. Best, Todor→Bozhinov18:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
We are not erasing anything, the indoeuropean populations that later made up the Thracians were not the Thracians we know after 1000 BC.Thracians in 3,000 BC simply did not exist as Thracians.The Prehistoric but later Thracian populations are just populations with no ethnicity.Megistias (talk) 18:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Who are you (plural)? And what the heck is a 'population with now ethnicity'? Proto-Thracians shared a common origin, common religion and mythology, and common language. I'm pretty sure you're pushing some kind of pro-Greek agenda now.
Also, I'm kindly asking you to edit all the substubs about ancient Greek colony articles you've created in the last few days, substituting the links in "ancient Greek" from Greece to Ancient Greece. There's little in common between the country founded in the 19th century and those ancient colonies.
I have to agree with Todor. Such a large number of one-line stubs is really useless. Either keep them in a list, or expand upon them. Of course, if there is no potential for expansion (i.e., if only name and location are known, then per WP:NOTABILITY they shouldn't have articles at all). Also, using a book's index to locate cities is not a good practice, since many locations are historically known under different names. By relying on an index, you can easily miss that and create multiple articles for what is essentially the same site. I strongly urge you to find some additional, more detailed sources, and spend some time editing your creations. You don't have to create full articles on the first go, but please flesh them out with more than name and location. Constantine ✍ 09:21, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Clapkidas you are the one that told me that Wikipedia is about dedicated articles.Dont predispose yourself that those articles wont grow or dont have the capacity to.I know the pages they are elaborated in the bibliography and i hope you realized that i have created a huge number of articles this past month and i dont have the time to expand on all of them simultaneously.Megistias (talk) 11:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I have created about50+ Dacian,50+ Thracian,50+ Greek and tribes or cities that are stubs.They can be merged into the articles.Megistias (talk) 11:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Let me clear something up: I objected when you converted an existing article into a redirect to a list. The particular article, IIRC, was about the Athamanians, where we both know there is potential for expansion, something for which I am not so sure about in many of the entries you have created over the last days. To be clear, I am glad someone is tackling those obscure areas, and article creation should always be encouraged. But relying on an index is, as I said, not a good idea, and I have not seen you use other sources in the city articles. Either way, it is generally far more useful to create less articles of an adequate quality than a huge number of one-liners. In my experience, once an article is created, the editor feels much less compelled to return to it soon. In other words, the work done on a new article by its creator gets usually done in the first few days. Especially on articles about such obscure subjects, it is very likely they'll remain that way for a long time. I sincerely hope that I will be proven wrong however. Constantine ✍ 17:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
If i get the time they will certainly grow or be merged.See the list cities articles, when i have placed the specificic pages where the cities are explained elaborately in a number of them.Megistias (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I ve put ancient Greek to all articles on ancient Greek colonies, it a mistake on those.sorry fo rthe hassle.I 'll merge them to the article when i find the timeMegistias (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I have neither the patience nor the time to discuss with you, Megistias. Your bias and your intention to erase any trace of Thracian habitation in later Greek-colonized areas of Bulgaria is not hard to see. I'm only asking you to redirect all those substubs to List of ancient Greek cities now. Todor→Bozhinov11:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I dont take orders nor do i take your unfounded accusations.This is about ancient Thrace not Bulgaria.Those stubs will be merged in List of Ancient Cities of Thrace and Dacia or List of ancient Greek cities.Some of them have more data and they may become full articles.Megistias (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Look at it this way: in my first post, I provided ample references that the term "Thracians" is used for the pre-1000 BC culture by eminent researchers (including Fol), and thus your corrections to those articles were not necessary. You have insisted on those corrections, pointing to the fact that you obviously have a problem with the naming of those people as Thracians or Proto-Thracians, as your own sources call them. If it wasn't (Proto-)Thracians who named Nesebar "Menebria", who was it? An unnamed population of random jabbering barbarians? Come on.
I'm not going to discuss this any further. Your asking me to acquaint myself with a topic that I'm already discussing is disrespectful, particularly because you're the one who is unable to prove their point. Best, Todor→Bozhinov12:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hi. I've removed your contribution on the Illyrii in Alpine regiments of the Roman army. It seems to me that your edit has reduced the clarity of the paragraph and, in any case, the Illyrians are not relevant to the article. PS: On the factual issue about the origin of the term Illyrii, Wilkins' view is not the only one nor is it mainstream (I had a reference also, to Alfoldy). Pliny the Elder in his Naturalis Historia mentions the tribe of the Illyrii proprie dicti ("Illyrians properly so called") (N.H. III.22) and the Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, the most authoritative and up-to-date such classical atlas, shows the Illyrii tribe in central Albania. Wilkins' claim that "Illyrians" is a Greek exonym is also far from certain - it could easily derive from an native name. It is also uncertain that the "Illyrians" would not have called themselves such. They shared a common language, as did the ancient Greeks, who, despite being divided into many states, recognised a common ethnic label of Hellenes. Overall, you need to be less dogmatic about issues that remain unresolved. Regards 86.9.196.150 (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC) EraNavigator (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, but I've terminated my contributions to Wikipedia, except to complete and improve articles that I've already written (see my usder page for a complete list). I am now focussing on writing a book of my own. Regards EraNavigator (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Celtic Warfare
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I really, really, really wish you had posted something on the discussion page before jumping in and editing so extensively and apparently without knowing all that much about the subject. I doubt the section headings will work. The topic differs a great deal from Dacian, Thracian and Illyrian Warfare whose templates you have decided to try and use. The result is that the article is currently in a complete mess; repeating and contradicting itself in places. Paul S (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've moved some sections, deleted ones that I don't think we can include and expanded a little. It still needs a lot more work. Paul S (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
It looks to me that you are edit-warring at Albania. If you agree to stop now, I will not file a 3RR case. I am also considering asking other admins to impose a 1RR/day rule on the article, based on all the uncooperative editing that is going on. Let me know your answer. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Malicious redirect, blanking content
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion
This is regarding what to do next on the dispute at Albania. I was thinking of suggesting an RfC, but since this is a sourcing issue, maybe a focussed discussion of the sources would be enough to persuade people on the other side. Would you have the time to write up a paragraph on what connection there might be between the Albanians and Illyrian religion? Or, if it's been discussed elsewhere, could you collect some links to the discussions? I was thinking you could write something up on your own Talk page and then we could ask some experienced editors to comment on it. (I assume you would be collecting the arguments pro and con, and then affirming the con side). Perhaps we could get User:Dbachmann or somebody who often works on religious topics to review your reasoning. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I dont think that an Rfc will be needed for something this simple.A source was falsified and that part is pretty irrelevant.There is no connection between Albanians and Illyrian myths and religion so the proper thing to do is remove the two paragraphs alltogether OR just add somewhere in the beggining of the section that Albanians were Christians since the 11th century AD, thats when they appear in history anyways.Megistias (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The source used for Illyria paganism does not prove or claim that there is a link with Albanians and Illyrian paganism.It quotes page ,Tajar Zavalami on Albanian "myths", modern concepts,nationalism.Megistias (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Can you explain this more clearly? The book, "Albanian identities: Myth and history" seems to be recounting strange beliefs that people had at various times about Albanian history. So how exactly are you using this book to support your argument? Who are you agreeing with, and who are you disagreeing with? EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
As i write above though perhaps not clearly Albanians and Illyrian religion are unrelated.The book is an inappropriate source for the issue.I am not using it (except pointing it out), Anna used it wrongly the article to claim Illyrian paganism in the middle ages but there is no such thing.Megistias (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
I propose to remove the two paragraphs alltogether OR just add somewhere in the beggining of the section that Albanians were Christians since the 11th century AD, thats when they appear in history anyways.Megistias (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Here's the issue, Ed: Anna inserts a sentence in the religion section that says: Christianity had to compete with Illyrian paganism until the middle ages, which is unsourced. Since this is a pretty extraordinary claim, I put a cn tag. Within thirteen minutes, she had added a source that said: Albanians were formed spiritually under the influence of Roman paganism, which was added to the pagan traditions of the Illyrians[4], which says nothing about Illyrian paganism surviving in the middle ages in Albania. Her logic goes something like this: Since Albanians formed under the influence of roman and Illyrian paganism, and they are descended from Illyrians, and they formed in the middle ages, this means Illyrian paganism survived in the middle ages. This is wholly fallacious, and is sloppy sourcing. The speed with which she placed the source makes me think she was afraid of losing the sentence and grabbed any source she could find in order to try and preserve it. The sentence in question is unsourced OR the way I see it, and either needs to be sourced properly, or needs to go. --Athenean (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Now that I've looked into it a little deeper, the whole Religion section is an unsourced OR disaster. It is filled with crap like This arrangement prevailed until the Ottoman invasion of the 14th century, when the Islamic faith was officially imposed upon the Pagan and Christian populations of Albania., which implies that paganism somehow survived until the Ottoman conquest in the 15th century. This is insane. This reads like a high school essay, not an encyclopedia. Not only that, but it is extremely poorly organized, going from the modern day, to antiquity, and back again. Come to think, the whole article is a mess (particularly the History section), but it is zealously guarded by patriotic editors, and any edits by non-Albanian editors are swiftly reverted with comments such as these [5]. Attempts to discuss in the talkpage are met with an eventual stony silence, as in Talk:Albania#Religion, again. --Athenean (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Athenean, thanks for the detailed response. The edit by Kedadi that you cite above under 'swiftly reverted' was taking out a very large change by Alexikoua that (I think) might have had more chance of acceptance if it had been negotiated step-by-step. (Also, the previous editor used the phrase 'copy edit' in his edit summary, which might be questioned). If people think that Edwin Jacques is not a good source, this question could be raised at WP:RS/N. EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Well I brought up the issue of Illyrian paganism on the talkpage, and look at the result: Stony silence. The Albanian editors have the version they want, and they apparently see no need to discuss anything. This is how it is in the Balkans articles. Now, if I went ahead and removed those two sentences on the grounds that they are nonsense, which I would be justified in doing, what do you think will happen? I will be immediately reverted with some patronizing comment telling to "see talkpage" or "discuss". --Athenean (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
???????????????
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I am sorry but are you crazy??????? With that success you can put those sections in Second Bulgarian Empire. Don't you see that the series History of Bulgaria continue with Principality and Kingdom of Bulgaria and then Socialist Bulgaria as separate articles. I think you know what was National Awakening period for the Balkan countries during the Ottoman domination so I will stop here. --Gligan (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
That article adresses the history of Bulgarian nationalism from its start and so on.This is the order.The sections go there and get developed and then go as smaller sections with "main" in other appropriate articles, those would be Communist Bulgaria & Bulgaria since 1989.Also if its big enough it becomes an article into itself.
The article is supposed to address the Ottoman domination over Bulgaria during 19th century. And it is represented as such in the template for timeline of Bulgarian history. The Bulgarian nationalism is different matter - the National Awakening is the period of Bulgarian revolutionary and cultural activities to overthrow the Ottoman invaders. --Gligan (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
October 2009
Latest comment: 15 years ago23 comments8 people in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Thracians. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. LaveolT21:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at Thracians. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Todor→Bozhinov21:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You were advised to go to dispute resolution on three occasions already. Yet, you seem to think all this is just a battle you have to win somehow. Well, it's not. Try the main page for more info on the project. --LaveolT21:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Blocked 55 hours for disruption. When I took this content out of Orpheus I said it wasn't appropriate as written, and trying to edit-war it back into Thracians is very poor form. Moreschi (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I did not readd the same thing.That was actually completely different and with mostly different sources.
Decline reason:
That's really not an excuse, and it's not true. The main thrust of your contribution was the same, and with multiple editors removing the material and questioning not only its appropriateness but even its relevance on the talk page, and no one supporting you, you should not have been reverting. Mangojuicetalk14:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
On-hold comment: Without endorsing either the edit-warring or the nationalistic blather at issue, I am concerned that this block is technically an abuse of administrator tools, as it appears to have been made to advance the blocking administrator's position in a content dispute. Moreschi, the blocking admin, says above that "When I took this content out of Orpheus I said it wasn't appropriate as written, and trying to edit-war it back into Thracians is very poor form." Indeed, Moreschi has repeatedly removed content from Orpheus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), inserted by Megistias ([6]) at [7], [8] and [9]. That content from Orpheus is similar to the content contested in Thracians, [10]. Therefore, Moreschi should not have blocked Megistias, with whom he was in a content dispute. I invite Moreschi to comment. Sandstein 05:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
If you look at what happened at Orpheus, I think you'll find that my removal of various chunks of material that were being edit-warred over (having blocked Jingiby for it) was not actually contested by Megistias, nor anybody else, and some of it will in fact return once I've finished the book I'm reading on the subject. Hence there is no actual "dispute". The fact that he later went around trying to stick something similar into Thracians in a separate act of trolling is of course unrelated. It is an unfortunate fact of doing as much WP:ARBMAC enforcement as I have that you often wind up both enforcing discipline and simultaneously fixing the article in question, which inevitably gets battered by the edit wars as Orpheus had, not least because the original participants in the dispute don't know much about the subject they are fighting over and their English is often terrible anyway. I acknowledge this is something of a grey area, but since Megistias seemed to be fine with my work at Orpheus and didn't dispute any of it, I don't see a problem here. Moreschi (talk) 09:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Moreschi. Having done ARBMAC enforcement myself, I am sympathetic to the problems you describe. However, I think that it is a bad idea to "enforce discipline and simultaneously fix the article in question", as you put it, because by fixing the article one often tends to appear to take one party's side in a dispute, which creates an appearance of partiality. That's why I believe you should not have made that block yourself. I've removed the on-hold status and am reopening this unblock request for others to comment. Sandstein 09:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
This is simply not the case. I am well known to nearly all the WP:ARBMAC crowd, having spent much of the past 2 years (almost) blocking, banning, and otherwise restricting them. I have banninated the backsides of so many of each side that my neutrality is almost never questioned, as it wasn't at Souliotes, wasn't at Orpheus, and wasn't here, to pick just the 3 most recent examples. By and large, I think they recognise the need for an honest broker when things get out of hand. Moreschi (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I can confirm that I view Moreschi as a reliably neutral side and I understand his decision to block Megistias. I don't see his edits to the Orpheus article and his block of Megistias for edits to the Thracians article as taking a side or being involved in the dispute. It may not obey the letter of the law, but his style of administration certainly follows the spirit. And what's most important, it works flawlessly with Balkans-related articles. Todor→Bozhinov13:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Megistias, I could imagine making a case for your unblock if you would agree not to make any controversial edits to Balkan articles without first:
Proposing your change on the article talk
Getting at least one another person to express support for your change on the article talk
The definition of a controversial edit is anything that gets reverted, or anything that common sense should tell you is controversial. In addition, any time one of your edits was reverted, you would need to open a discussion on the article talk about that point, and wait for an answer, before making the revert again. Let me know if you will agree to this proposal. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Can you please either agree or disagree, with my suggestion? I can't control the behavior of other people, but I can work to get you unblocked. Admins could review POV-pushing in this whole set of articles if somebody will collect the data to show it. EdJohnston (talk) 13:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Ed, this is whimpish. Megistias has had what, 5 blocks now under WP:ARBMAC since January 2008, plus a batch of other temporary restrictions if you check the log. He knows the rules by now. I am trying to wake him up to the fact that continued non-constructive contributions are unacceptable. "Anything that common sense tells you is controversial" - this lacks imagination, Ed. What is common sense to you and I may not be to someone from the cultural background of nationalist Balkan politics. This doesn't just apply to Megistias and it isn't really his fault, it applies to nearly everyone editing this topic area. We need to be clear-cut and definite as to what the standards are. If you're going to unblock him - which I don't really see a good reason for doing so - it needs to be something enforceable, like a 1RR per week restriction for the next year (he's already been on this restriction for 2 months a while back and it seemingly didn't have a long-term effect). Moreschi (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
(ec)I would sooner just do the block and apply the more serious sanction next time. Megistias will now realise he is on his last chance before I start playing serious hardball; there is no need to jump to a big revert restriction right now. Moreschi (talk)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Dacians have or rather had a place in Romanian nationalism (not as much as the following analogies under any circumstances),Thracians in Bulgarian nationalism and Illyrians in Croatian, Albanian nationalism as well of Kosovo Albanians, Illyrians#In_Nationalism.We mention the subject on the Illyrians in their respective page but Bulgarians for example that made this into a system during communism like the Albanians did not have a section.User:Laveol removed this at first claiming the nationality of the authors was not to his liking [13].And Moreschi my material was not [14] completely offtopic as there is an appropriate section in Illyrians.There is a similar weight between Bulgarian nationalism and Albanian nationalism as they both became systematic during communism and this carried on to today.I had also told you User_talk:Moreschi#Bulgarian_nationalism but you were not online and i had sent you an email as well(one to User:Dbachmann too) prior to this but you did not answer(though you didnt really have to of course)Megistias (talk) 11:07 am, Today (UTC−4)
Decline reason:
That's all well and good, but it avoids the topic of your block and how you will correct your behavior going forward. TNXMan03:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You aren't blocked for being wrong, you're blocked for edit warring. Convince others you are right, don't just try to force the material in over the objections of everyone else editing the article. I read this comment of yours before I declined your unblock. Mangojuicetalk15:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
It does not inspire confidence when an editor continues a content dispute in his unblock request. The request should concern his willingness to operate within the Wikipedia policy and guidelines, not whether he is right or wrong in a single dispute. Megistias, I think of you as lacking the patience needed to pursue diplomacy, not as someone who is unable to provide good historical information or reasoning in specific cases. You prevent yourself from being effective through your desire to get your material into every article. EdJohnston (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Epirus map
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Your map on ancient Epirus has became very popular in youtube (3 vids uploaded in 12 November). Seems, some indef blocked ex-wiki community members have found a new hobby there.Alexikoua (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Icon Group International
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Megistias. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Albanian nationalism, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. When reviewing the history of an article, it is hard to see what is going on when there is a large number of small changes. EdJohnston (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
